September 10, 2025 • 48 mins
No bumper music, mirth about McDonalds, whisky, Babylon Bee headlines, or AI Haiku today: the assassination of Charlie Kirk is too serious a matter. John, Lucretia, and Steve (who is still over in Iceland hiking) assembled quickly for this special emergency episode, not only giving first reactions to a still developing story, but also connecting it to several recent events that point to a larger picture. Even before today's despicable event, it seemed as though we were reaching in inflection point in American political life, in which the reckless leftist fantasies of 2020 were finally being rejected.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Well, it's hard to say. Welcome everybody to what I'm
going to call an emergency podcast, like our friends that
commentary occasionally do, because they're up every day and we're
only up every week. But I'm over here in Iceland.
Lucretia's joining me from Arizona. John is in Washington, d C.
And we're all in a state of shock about the
news that's broken here in the last hour about the
(00:23):
shooting of Charlie Kirk. And it comes hard on this
unbelievable story out of North Carolina here in the last
few days, of a woman Ukrainian refugee asylum seeker being
murdered by someone who'd been arrested fourteen times and not
kept in prison beyond one short sentence for an earlier case.
(00:45):
And there's more to be said about that, but I
don't know. Even before the news about Charlie Kirk today,
I was sensing that we'd reached a turning point, that
the whole the contrast between the lionization of Joe George
Floyd in twenty twenty is over and now the left,
(01:05):
of course and the media, the media coverage of this
North Carolina story is a story in itself but I'm uh,
but now I don't know. We'll just you know, it's
early yet, We're only an hour out of this news.
But so I don't know who wants to start, Lucretia,
do you want to go? I'm sure you have a
lot to say, needless to say, and our listeners will expect.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
For before we do that, Stev, you should say that
this is the three Whiskey, a happy hour podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
It is.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Who was on it?
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Yeah, I have been. I mean, I don't feel like
much mirth at this moment, but I have been drinking
these wonderful Lecelandic drinks at a very fine bar here
on the south coast of Iceland. But okay, anyway, Lucretia
start us out.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I'm going to go backwards even a little bit further
to the situation in Minneapolis that the media ignored once
it was clear that this was a trans person, uh,
to the extent that they talked about it at all.
It was well, we don't have a motive yet, and
you know, so the left created the entire transgender movement
(02:20):
and added to it all of those dangerous drugs and
the and and just feeding into the people people's mental illness.
We talked about that a little bit before, uh, and
anybody who brought up that this was a transgender person
who was responsible for the murder of those children was
roundly criticized. Oh, we can't, we can't. We have to
(02:43):
stand up for our transgender brothers.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
And sisters, however that works.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
And then and then, of course the murder of how
do you say or name do you know? Is it Irena?
Have you heard of?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
I'm not sure Arena is something.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
I want to make sure I say it right, because
ire Zabutska call it. A beautiful little girl and young woman. Sorry,
she just looks so young and innocent, and she was
just gorgeous. And this animal, this subhuman creature, who should
have been in jail, as you pointed out, from fourteen
(03:17):
past violent crime arrests, just for no apparent reason other
than I guess some people are there's some reason to
believe he walked away saying I got that white girl.
I got that white girl. I don't even know if
it's I'm not even calling it a racist incident. It's
just but we can't have honest conversations about that. And
(03:41):
then jump ahead, and I don't want to get ahead
of you on this, Steve, because you said it yourself.
But I was actually on X when I first saw
this happen, and you know, saw the lovely people, lots
of famous people saying pray for Charlie kirk Is again,
absolutely beautiful family, beautiful blonde, gorgeous wife, beautiful kids, two
(04:03):
of them. And then all of a sudden you start
seeing the left again. Oh guess he lost that debate,
And you know, just and Pritzker that there's nothing redeeming
about that man. I will keep my lookism comments to
myself for a moment, because that's you know, the fact
(04:25):
that he's ugly and fat isn't even the least of
his problems. You know, he actually had the temerity to
blame Trump and January sixth for starting a cycle of
violence that we now can't get out of. I'm done
with these people, with these people on the left who
celebrate murder. That particular comment about I guess he lost
a debate had already it had been up for four
(04:48):
minutes at one hundred and twenty thousand likes. You know,
I don't think this is why I tell the guys
in a chat, I don't think we can have a
political community with people like this. I really don't. Evans
NBC blamed Trump. The Matthew Dowd blamed Charlie Kirk himself
(05:11):
for his full speech. And if anything, anybody who's ever
listened to Charlie Kirk knows he doesn't have hateful speech.
I don't know what else to say, Steve. I'll be
quiet now and let you take well.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
You know, normally I don't like to dish on people,
but I saw the Matthew Dowd comment too, and here
I'll just share with listeners that back around maybe twenty ten,
two thousand and nine, remember he was a Bush person
who had helped Bush win the election in two thousand
and two thousand and four, and we were together at
an event in San Antonio, Texas. And I won't go
(05:47):
through the details because they're, you know, boring. Now. I
don't remember clearly except coming away thinking this guy is
a total adult who knows nothing. He is a lightweight.
Why do why did the Bush people go bond to him?
Why do people treat him like you? Anyway, Matthew Dallas
a complete useless I'm gonna sound like you, He's a
completely useless human being. Okay, I should stop there because
(06:10):
normally not my style, except tonight that it is. I've
seen some of those comments too, and I guess a
couple of things occurred to me. One is again and
in the new media age we live in. You know,
it was much taken by Jim Pearson's great book about
the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination. We know that Kennedy,
(06:31):
John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a communist who'd been
to the Soviet Union wanted to go to Cuba. But
what was the media narrative within minutes? It was, Well,
it was the right wing climate of hate in Dallas.
I think you can't get away with that now, right
because I think the media landscape and a social media
(06:52):
landscape is different. You know, again, it's early on to
see how this all plays out, but i'll stop here. John,
You've been patient here. Well, Lucretia and I have been
venting a big way. So, oh, you were supposed to
be on Charlie Kirks Joy.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
I know Charlie. I've known Charlie for a while. And
the crazy thing, the cozy crazy coincidence, I was supposed
to go on Charlie's podcast yesterday afternoon. And the reason
I couldn't is because I was on Fox and Fox
went over long, and because my Fox interview went too long,
they went and had to get a different guest, and
(07:30):
it's a terrible I was actually on Zoom with Charlie
and his producer and I was saying, well, I'll just
come back on in a few days later this week,
and I mean, that's not going to happen. Now. I'd
been on Charlie's podcast several times, but most importantly, and
I think this is maybe what we all having come
(07:50):
with him, is at the Claremont Institute brought me and
him together during the COVID years. He was a Lincoln Fellow,
and he was a Lincoln Fellow in Las Vegas the
one year that we had the Lincoln Fellowship in Las Vegas.
But Charlie, Yeah, Charlie, the only place we could have
(08:12):
a conference, and Charlie, being the upstanding young man he
was even then, I could not tempt him to join
me at the craps table. I remember that distinctly. And
one of the things I do at these Lincoln conferences
is I run a war game where which I had
gone through when I was in the Bush administration, and
(08:34):
I run a war game, and I have each of
the fellows be like the Secretary Defense or the President,
and I can't remember. I think I had Charlie be
the editor in chief of the New York Times, because
I always try to assign them roles opposite to their
true feelings. And he played the He played it with Gusto,
who is my recollection. He really enjoyed playing the part
(08:56):
of editor in chief of the New York Times. I
believe trying to run a story imperiling national security exactly
the last thing he would ever do. But I do remember,
you know, one thing that he was really interested in
then and now was how far could the judiciary go
and trying to undermine a presidency. He was already interested
(09:18):
in that even in twenty twenty one, which of course
is just a few months after January sixth. And then
on his podcast that I've been on a few times
this year, it was a wonderful guy. He was just
a talent, you know, That's one thing I mean the
guy was. He just came away. He was talented. And
so the two thoughts that you both had I had
(09:41):
was one, is this the kind of event which will
indeed change the consciousness of the country in a way.
Maybe my hope would be that it would show everyone
that this political violence has gone too far. Right. This
is you know, it's no I think it is just
again a coincidence, but maybe not that the trial of
(10:03):
the guy who tried to assassinate President Trump started this week.
You know, we're seeing this new level of political violence,
and I don't think we should tolerate it. Maybe if
the Kennedy assassination unleashed things, maybe this kind of assassination
could have the opposite effect. And then the second thing
I bet we're going to find as we found in
(10:26):
the case I think of this Charlotte killer, as we
found in the case of the transgender killer that Lucretia
was talking about. You know, we have to fix our
mental health system. I think one of the things, one
of the great errors of the sixties and seventies was
loosening the mental health system, where we allow people to
wander the streets who are clearly not well. And we're
(10:49):
seeing that this is a large explanation behind the killings.
And I even think this is actually an interesting question
and constitutional law and policy is right. You have a
natural right to your freedom. But I don't think you
have a natural right to your freedom to the point
where it proses a danger to other people. And at
some point, society I think has to be able to,
(11:10):
you know, commit people to mental hospitals involuntarily. And I
bet that's what we're going to find the shooter here
at some point.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
Well, I mean not if you've been arrested fourteen times.
Let's go back by the way that Daniel Penny case
in New York. You know, jd Evance has a great
tweet saying about the North Carolina business that you know,
Daniel Penny tried to prevent something like this and he
was got he faced criminal charges for doing so. Well,
the person who died at the hands of Daniel Penny
(11:38):
in that subway two three four years ago had been
arrested numerous times, just like the person in North Carolina.
And let go. And so there you go. That's one
element of it. The other one is I'm now now
bringing back a moment that I won't say I regret it,
but I'm sorry that I sort of brought up in
(11:59):
this fashion. I was saying back in twenty twenty, twenty
twenty one, when you know, the riots after George Floyd
all the rest of that said, Yeah, this is very bad,
but it's not as bad as the late sixties when
we had waves of bombings and political assassination, and let's
hope we don't have that again. Now we have had
it again, you know, twice against Trump and now Charlie Kirk,
(12:25):
and again I no moment like this. You don't want
to be partisan about it. But what does the media say,
and what does the left say, Well, you know, Trump's
a fascist, it's right wing violence. Well, you know, maybe
you can find some of that, but again we see
that violence is overwhelmingly coming from the left. Will stop,
(12:46):
Will stop for me too.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
I think the only thing I kind of want to
add to you guys have been everything you said. I
agree with. This idea that the left gets its own
truth about these things is really really frustrating. I'm going
to give you one example.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
There's this.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
It on Twitter that's carrying on about she can't even
pretend she lives in Utah, that she'd be so thrilled
to death about him dying because he's such a hateful,
horrible human being that brought us to this ugly place
where we are blah blah blah blah blah. She says,
Charlie Kirk would personally throw you in a concentration camp
for ten dollars. Can you imagine you know him well, John,
(13:30):
or you both know him more than I do.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Let's say that.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Can you imagine anybody less likely to throw you in
a concentration camp than Charlie Kirk Number one? Number two,
There are no freaking concentration camp, you stupid leftists. There
are no concentration camps. Oh my god. And they can
just keep saying these lies and get away with it.
(13:54):
And I just don't know what to do about it
anymore because there's so many stupid college age people out
there believing it and voting for Mindonnie. Sorry, that's how
it ends up.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Well, one thing, I mean this is maybe not entirely tangential,
but two or three days ago the news was out
that Barry Weiss might be taking your role in the
management of CBS News. And I did see a squip
today that I think is true that, in fact, was
it CBS News or maybe it was The New York Times,
(14:27):
I forget which is going to hire as an on
boodsman Ken Weinstein. I don't know if you know Ken John.
I know him a little bit. He was president of
the Hudston A good conservative, maybe maybe more of too
much of a neo con from Lucrease's taste. But the
point is he's anathema to whatever news organization hired him.
I forget if it's The Times for CBS, but doesn't
matter that the same right. And isn't this interesting how
(14:48):
the worm is turning on some of these things?
Speaker 3 (14:51):
But did you see the reaction to Barry Weiss's apossible appointment?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Yes, was the most vile anti Semitic and Zionist. Oh
it was. It was. I mean, it was just nauseating.
Everything about the left today is nauseating to me. They're evil,
and I don't again, I don't know how we can
continue in a political community with people like this.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Well, I mean that wouldn't go any far.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I mean that's I mean, look, there's the problem with
and I'm so happy I'm not on Twitter because you're
going to see the extremes of people. There are extreme
people on the right that we wouldn't want to associate
with either. And what I really want to know is
what are responsible people on the left going to say
and do about this. I mean, yeah, we could quote
all kinds of crazy nut jobs on Twitter who get
(15:40):
on Twitter and get attention because they just specialize in
saying the most extreme things that are going to rile
you up. But I would it was this opportunity for
some moderate Democrats to disavow this kind of talk, to
say that this is a turning point that we have
to figure out a way too in this kind of
political vibe. Of course, when you talk about what people
(16:02):
who are you know, media figures and cable channels and
in newspapers, that's a different matter. If they they too
are joining in in this kind of this kind of rhetoric,
then I agree with Lucretia that these people are.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Well, you know what did printz Kers say. I mean,
I saw some scrip.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I know it's terrible about Charlie Kirk, but it's it's
really because of the rhetoric of Trump and the legitimizing
he gave to the violence of January sixth that caused
this to happen.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Has nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, I mean, well, John, I mean the place where
I don't think this is news to listeners, the place
to see the real crazy is on Blue Sky. And
I'm sure we're going to see lots of our friends
who will mind Blue Sky for the most crazy things
people are saying there. But that raises a larger point
that has to be dealt with. And I've been saying
this for a while too. Why did some many I mean,
(16:55):
I know some smart liberals, you know, both of them
might like to joke, but who left Twitter from Blue
Sky because they were so mad about Twitter being bought
by Musk and opened up to irresponsible people? So they're
all over there on Blue Sky in our own little
you know, very left a self reinforcing bubble. But there's
(17:17):
a larger point there. Liberals are people on the left
are intellectually and politically insecure people. That's why they want
the coziness of the Blue Sky bubble. That's why they
want the coziness of the campus bubble and the media bubble.
They can't stand to be challenged. What did Kirk do?
He would he would go to college campuses and you know,
(17:39):
take all comers and fight with him. And you know, myself,
I didn't always think that that was actually productive, But
the fact is is that it exposed the rot of
our university campuses where oh my god, we can't bear
to hear something that we disagree with. It will upset us,
It ruins our safe space. If good for Charlie for
doing that. I didn't really want to do that. I mean,
(18:00):
you know, I'd rather be in the classroom for sixteen
weeks where you persuade somebody to change their mind patiently, right.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I think that's us what I think what you're seeing
is that the left. There are stream versions of the left,
and then there are more responsible versions of the left.
But I think what this is going to reveal is
what we're seeing in Charlotte and the other cases Lucretia's
talking about, is that the left doesn't know how to
deal with crime because it is a collision with some
of their deeply held diversity beliefs and deeply held Marxist beliefs.
(18:30):
They can't understand that most people in the country want
to have a safe community where these kinds of attacks
on the subway are assassination. This is in Utah. You
have an assassination in Utah Utah Valley College. I know
people who teach there. I mean, there's a you know,
this is a pretty conservative This is also you know,
Salt Lake City, this is oram Utah, I believe, which
(18:51):
is a pretty conservative part of a conservative state. And
right when you see the responses a Democratic mayor to
these kinds of examples of crime where they say, you
can't rest your way out of right crime, Actually I
think you can. New York City, wrong, John.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
You're wrong. You can't arrest your way out of crime
if you just let them go as soon as you've
taken their mugshot and you put them back on the street,
because that's exactly what happened in the uh situation with
a young woman on the train in North Carolina.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, but the boys that they don't really have a
I think crime is the fundamental threat to the basic
right we have you. The basic right is the garmentship
provide security so that you can enjoy your rights. That's
the kind of the initial deal. And if the society
can't provide basic security, and you have and you've broken
(19:51):
the social contract, and you have these blue state mayors,
blue city mayors who don't know what to do about
crime because it conflicts with their view, right, that this
Marxist view that people are not responsible for their actions
and decisions, and if you have criminals, it's because the
capitalist system oppresses and twists people, not because they've decided
(20:11):
to violate fundamental norms of humanity. I think, why crazy
things about it.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
I don't disagree with what you said, but it's too generous, John.
Some of these people absolutely want the chaos and the
lack of safety and the fact that people live in fear,
because that's where their power comes from. And they, of
course don't have to live like that because there are
leads and they're surrounded by either you know, the commandeering
(20:42):
the police department to be their private security, or paying
having taxpayers pay for private security and live in their
fancy gated communities and so on. They they want people
to suffer crime because that makes them fearful, makes it
more and more and more dependent upon the state for
(21:06):
their deliverance. I do think everything you said is true,
by the way, from a philosophical point of view, I do.
But I also think that they've become unlike you. I'm
no longer willing to give even the slightest benefit of
the doubt in any case, you know this woman.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
I don't really think they want to have I don't
think democratic mayors would prefer to have higher crime rates
to cause instability which keeps them in power. I really don't.
I think they would love to have crime rates that
were lower. They just can't agree with policies that are
known to work and have worked for a long time,
because they just believe the sources of crime are from
(21:44):
these vast and personal forces. They would say society's fault
that that killer in Charlotte turned out that way, that
it wasn't his own personal responsibility and choice. I just
think it's such. They just view human nature differently thought
I thought I'd be Lucretia here with the natural rights.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Two three quick points. One is the mayor of Charlotte.
First of all, she said, oh, I want to thank
responsible people for not repeating the video, because of course
it would be problematic for them to see it right.
The second thing she said was, oh, we need more
money for police. Well, what if they'd arrested the guy
twenty times instead of fourteen times, this wouldn't have happened
(22:24):
and let him go each time. There's, you know, a
flight from reality. So John, I would pick up one
thread of what you said. So what do you say
responsible liberals or reasonable liberals. So I mean, who are
we talking about? John Fetterman I could see speaking clearly
about this bill. And I actually I think one thing
(22:45):
to look at. Let's see what happens in the next
forty eight to seventy two hours in New York between
Cuomo and Mandami. Mandami, who was an all defund the
police type person. He's tried to backtrack, but there's stuff
on the record, and you know, Cuomo, I don't like
that guy worth a darn, but he's like his dad,
and he's a shrewd tactical politician. And let's see if
(23:08):
he picks up on this and beats the heck out
of his opponent.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Let me let's right, let's see what Newsom says. Newsom
was on his podcast. That's right, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Yeah, they come out and he came out and was more.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Says another candidate for potential, you know content.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
A statement that it was it was a bad thing.
I would ask you, guys, can you think of a
single political activist on the left that the large bulk
of even the right wing Twitter universe would celebrate if
they were assassinated?
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I mean, seriously, yeah, probably, I mean I mean, look,
you're talking about the right wing fringe, right people, I know, well, but.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
We're not talking I'm sorry, guys, you're wrong. We're not
talking about the left wing fringe anymore. That is the
left wing.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Well, so back up a step here. I mean, I
think there is john something to what Lucretia says that
there are some people out there. I think some in
office who have the old fashioned Leninist view the worse
the better. And so even before this happened here today,
I was reflecting the last few days on the number
(24:28):
of Democratic office holders like Pritzker I think has said this,
and maybe a couple of others who said, oh, all
these moves of Trump to send National Guard into cities
to fight crime and round up illegal immigrants, it's really
just a predicate to canceling the twenty twenty six and
twenty twenty eight elections and staying in office forever, which
(24:49):
is looney tunes. Now, why this is interesting is that
I remember talking to Peter Collier and David Horowitz now
both passed on right, David recently about i We're were
asking once about you know, what, what don't you guys
think of Nixon? In nineteen sixty nine and seventy when
you were on the radical left, they said, oh, we
didn't care about Nixon. We had a lot of this
(25:10):
view that the worse the better, and they said, our
big theme then was Nixon's going to declare martial law
and cancel the nineteen seventy two election. That was a
big theme on the radical fringe of the new Left
in nineteen seventy. Now it is a view of many
mainstream Democrat elected officials. That's my point.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I wish, I wish I didn't think that most psychological
theories are bunk, because I do. But if the left
didn't have projection, they'd have no accusations to make against
the right at all. You know, really, people talking about
(25:51):
we're going to try to affected the twenty twenty six
or twenty twenty eight election. Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Anyway, all right, so a related shoe because we don't.
I mean, there's a lot more news out to come
and more to say next week, especially if they find
the shooter who's apparently at large. I'm amazed at this,
but they.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Brought somebody in and then released him.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah there was a mistakenness. Yeah, yeah, so a related issue.
It may not seem so at first, but maybe it is.
Is the United States military I decided to take out
a Venezuelan drug running boat, and that has got people
at a high dudgeon, no due process, et cetera, et cetera,
(26:35):
and I, you know, I don't know. I was kind
of thrilled at that. I think it's effective. I think
I'm going to leave it to you, John to give
us the legal basis for it. But I think there
has to be some for a variety of reasons. So
so you talk first about that. I'm again the reaction
to the left to that is very revealing in my mind.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yes, I think there's a more straightforward way to explain it,
and then I think a more a difficult way. I
think the more straightforward way is this could tie into
the declaration about under the Alien Enemies Act, which basically
said we're at war with Venezuela. And at the time
(27:17):
that came out, I was like, what is the proof
you know, the government it could be true, but the
government needs to put out more, you know, explain it
to the American people why it thinks that drug cartels
and the Venezuelan government are so intertwined that they essentially
treat that we essentially are treating these drug cartels as
an arm of the Venezuelan government. And if the Venezuelan
(27:40):
government is infiltrating people into the country and deliberately selling
harmful drugs in the country and using violence against the
United States and our communities, then you can make a
plausible case where it's some kind of state of war,
and if we are, then you can use force against
Venezuela because we are at war with Venezuela, even though
(28:03):
we haven't openly declared it. I don't think you need
some kind of congressional declaration of war to recognize there's
a state that I think is the easier thing to do.
I do think that it would be incumbent on the
Trump administration to make the case a little stronger, or
at least to openly declare we are in hostilities with Venezuela.
I think the harder case, which I don't think the
(28:23):
Trump administration is doing, but I think people on the
left think they're doing it, is to say we're just
allowed to kill drug runners. You know that we are
converting drug smuggling and drug distribution from a military matter
into from a criminal justice matter into a military matter,
and so I've been doing a bunch of interviews and
(28:45):
talking to people about it this last two weeks because
that's very similar to what we faced on nine to
eleven when I was at the Justice Department, when we
considered terrorism on September tenth, two thousand and one, to
be a matter of criminal justice, and we sent the
FBI out to chase down the bombers of the USS
coal and we treated the USS coal as a crime scene.
(29:08):
After September eleventh, we considered terrorist groups to be the
kinds of enemies that we could wage war against. And
that was something in the end that all three branches
agreed with the President. Bush decided on the night of
September eleventh, and Congress agreed on September eighteenth when they
passed in AUMF and the Supreme Court eventually decided a
year later in a case called Handy, that we were
(29:30):
at war.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
Didn't we recently declare certain drug cartels to be terrorist organizations,
which them would open them up to this similar treatment. Yes,
that's something.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
So I think this is the thing that the Trump
administration should do more clearly, is that what they're saying,
what they have said is that these drug cartels are
really part of Venezuelan government. One of the three drug
cartels they designated, they say is run by the president
of Venezuela. It's called the Cartel of the Suns. And
that's just one of the three that were designated. So
(30:03):
that to me is essentially saying, you know, we are
at war with Venezuela. You could make this other claim,
but I don't think they're doing it yet, But you
could make this other claim that drug cartels are as
big a threat as terrorist groups, and they are the
thing about drug cartels, and again, this is something that
has to be made out by the government. They're probably
(30:23):
going to have to do it in court sooner or later,
is that drug cartels are no longer interested in just crime.
They're really interested in affecting our policies or attacking us
because of our foreign policies, or they threaten the national security.
But I don't think the arguments you hear some people
on the left making accusing Conservatives of making hold water.
(30:46):
They're basically saying, oh, the Trump administration is just saying
anything that hurts the country enables us to declare state
of war. I don't think that could be right, because
there's I mean, you could say any kind of crime,
or any level of crime, if you aggregate it throughout
the country, probably causes more harm to our country than
most wars ever have in our history. You can say
(31:07):
all the fundamental deaths in a given year, you know,
are more than the casualties that we suffered in World
War two or Vietnam and Korea, or so you could
make those kind of claims. So I think what you
also need in addition to the harm of crime is
you need some kind of organization that's attacking us for
political reasons. So like, I don't think we could declare
war on the mafia. The mafia doesn't care what our
(31:29):
foreign policy is. They just want to make money. In fact,
the mafia probably likes it the richer and more powerful
we are because they can make more money. And I
think that's a difference between that and say Venezuela that's
using drug cartels to try to harm us as part
of a campaign against the United States.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Yeah, I don't like your mafia analogy very well, because
they're all fear in this country and they're making the
money to keep it here. These other countries. Are they
want to make money, Yes, they're taking money out of
the country, but they're doing active harm to our citizens.
And I think it's actually a pretty easy case to say,
wait a minute, how many Americans are dying now from
ventanyl and other drugs being imported in the country and
(32:09):
governments are supporting this and we're done with that? And
I don't know, I rather liked it. I was kind
of thrilled. My guess is that the venezueland drug boats
and other countries are going to drop to a trickle now.
And Okay, what else is on our list here that's
related to the c and Lucretia's view about this.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Yeah, okay, I agree with both of you. I have
I am to understand from talking to someone who has
real personal knowledge of this, that fentanyl is getting harder
and harder to buy on the street. And if nothing else,
that's a wonderful thing, because there was a time when
(32:50):
you could get a hit of fentanyl, which of course
you know it could kill you quite easily, for five
bucks on the street. And it's it's been pro based
out of the market for most drug users. They're using
other drugs. But that's I mean kudos to Trump for
taking that seriously and caring about it. I remember one
(33:12):
of my favorite memes was during COVID was that our
government was more successful at keeping you from getting ivermectin
than they were and shutting down fentanyl. It was never
the lack of ability there was. It was never something
that the government couldn't do. They just had no will
(33:34):
to do so. And so I'm all in favor of
it won't matter one of the things. There was an
article yesterday. Gosh, I wish I could remember who wrote it.
Somebody good wrote it, and it was basically that it
doesn't matter what the issue is. It doesn't matter how
great the outcome of a policy is, whatever it might be.
(33:54):
If if it can be used against Trump, the left
will do so. They're Trump arrangement syndrome so bad. And
you know, I know that's trite, but it really is true.
The mayor of Washington, d C. Did come back and
and and give Trump credit for, you know, for cleaning
(34:14):
up Washington, d C. So I do think that, you know,
she's an exception to that thing. I said to you, John,
the only thing I don't want to beat the Venezuelan thing.
I'm all in favor of it. That seems to me
a much more worthy activity for our military than nation
building in Iraq or Afghanistan. But we'll leave that one
(34:37):
for another Neo Kan time.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
I do want to.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Mention it's almost it seems almost kind of sacrilegious to celebrate,
but I do think Trump got some victories this week
from the courts. Not huge victories, but victories nonetheless. And
maybe John you want to talk about those, because you're
our resident expert. And how far you think, say, the
(35:03):
Humphreys executors is close to being overturned.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
I mean I kind of consider it overturned already, but yes,
you've seen. I mean, how could it not be more
overturned than on the exact facts of Humphrey's executor itself.
So the latest Supreme Court intervention was basically firing someone
on the FTC, which was the agency that Humphrey's executor upheld.
(35:30):
The Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts issued and lifted an
order that allowed an FTC commissioner to go back to
work even though she'd been fired by President Trump. I
don't see any more clear signal that Humphrey's executor is
toast the interesting thing is whether this is going to
(35:53):
apply to the Federal Reserve. And if that's the battleground,
then Trump is already won because that basically means every
other agency is now really under the control of the president,
as I think the Constitution requires. So Trump is really
I mean, this is something I mean, I think most
conservatives could not understand what Humphrey's executor meant. It makes
(36:15):
no sense when you read it, but it does restore,
I think, the Constitution to this sort of spartan three
branch framework that the founders created. And I you know,
but it's interesting that battlefront heredy has moved to the
independence of the Central Bank, where just yesterday President Trump
lost a case in Washington, d C. Saying that he
(36:38):
can't fire this member of the Federal Reserve Board, the
Lisa Cook, who has been apparently not telling the truth
and her mortgage statements and again, as we discussed it before,
apparently not reporting adequately what income she's making from rental
properties to the irs. So I think this is greally,
but in general, I think you're should that make victories
(37:02):
for a Trump court.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
Before you make a point, because I can tell you
have an important point to make. By the look on
your face. I just have a quick question for John.
Did you find the court and I'm going to forget
the name of the case. Of course, my brain's a
little fried right now that where they made a distinction
between the Federal Reserve as a quasi independent agency. You
know what I think about that from my snarky comments
(37:24):
about it last time.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Just the summer, Yeah, just the summer Willcox, of course
the cases will Cox, right.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
But do you think that the doctrine of executive of
Article two? Executive power shall be invested in the president?
Do you think that there is actually a principled reason
to carve out the FED from the rest of what
(37:50):
you made a pretty good argument for. It looks like
the court's absolutely heading in that direction to say no.
If it's a if a person is exercising executive power,
the person can fire them. Why would the FED be said.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
I don't yeah, I don't see why the Fed gets
an exception from the Constitution. I mean, everyone I think
agrees in our policy would be great if politicians didn't
set the interest rates. And there's interesting work that's been
done the shows, even with these alleged protections for the
central banks, independence. Presidents like Lyndon Johnson have harangued central bank.
(38:25):
FED governors or Richard Nixon have successfully exerted political pressure
on them anyway to lower interest rates with an upcoming election.
But I don't. So here's the best argument on the
other side is this, They would say the Fed actually
does two things. It regulates the banking, which is executing
the law, so they would say, got to get rid
(38:47):
of that. And then the other thing it does is
that it's kind of like the lender of last resort
and it engages in these what they call open market operations,
which sets interest rates by a short term interest rates
by buying and selling treasury bills on the open markets.
So the interesting thing is whether gold on what is lucretia?
(39:13):
Oh so.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Suspect. But yeah, let's wait.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
We get rule and two hours how much seventy two.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Thirty two hours, eight hour? Anyway, john finish your.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Point just to go back to this. So some people say,
I don't find this persuasive at all. But some people
say that part of what the Federal Reserve does could
really be spun off into a private corporation, And yeah,
I don't. And it's like the first bank of the
United States was something like that. The First Bank of
the United States was really much more like a It
(39:50):
was like a publicly chartered company. It had shareholders, most
of the stock was held by private investors, and it
really was more like just like a a bank. And
the Federal Reserve operations, I don't think that's true because
I think if the Federal Reserve is out there trying
to change interest rates by buying and selling the property
of the United States government, I think that's executing federal
(40:13):
law too. So this is just one where people there
are some conservatives that who are trying to save the
independence of the Central Bank from the logic of three
distinct branches and the one that executes federal law has
to be the executive branch, and it has to be
under the president's control.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, I mean, I hope that's where it falls out.
I mean, so look, I go two directions on this,
just briefly on the economics. One is, in the Panic
of nineteen oh seven, JP Morgan got together a few
of his friends and fixed it out of their own pockets.
Really are the resources of their bank. You can't do
that now. We can't do that now because the debt
(40:49):
of the country has grown too big, which ironically might
be an argument against the Federal Reserve. Could we have
behaved this irresponsibly without the Federal Reserve having these extraordinary powers?
I don't know. Again, in nineteen oh seven, I think
it's true that John D. Rockefeller could have written a
personal check to eliminate the debt of the United States.
(41:11):
Now Elon Musk times one hundred cannot do that today. Okay,
leave that another side with some economists. Two quick points
and then let's get out on this special episode. One
is I got to thinking here again in the last
few days before today, that the left is saying, gosh,
the Supreme Court is backing up Trump or other people
(41:32):
saying gosh, we're sending a lot of questions to Supreme Court.
What's going on here? And I thought, well, that's what
Roosevelt did in the nineteen thirties, right, They overworked the
court because Roosevelt was trying to push the envelope and
change things, and now Trump is trying to change it back.
And that's point number two. Just for fun, I did
see a great meme and it was the formal portrait
(41:53):
of Justice Clarence Thomas and it was labeled Humphrey's Executor
Oil on Canvas. I thought was fun, But that's all
the merth I'm going to have here. Let's get out
today instead of doing our usual format with Babylon b's
and an AI thing, Let's try and answer this question,
and I'll go first. The question is something like, what
(42:16):
are two or three things you'd order, maybe just one
thing you would like to see or think we ought
to see as a reasonable and sober reaction to what
has happened here lately. My first one would be, or
my only one, it would be if the New York
Times under major media to drop saying the story here
is Republicans pounds. That's been the media reaction to the
(42:38):
North Carolina story. And maybe, you know, the New York
Times for a while said, you know, gosh, maybe we
should include some Trump voices on our pages. And they
didn't really do that much, but maybe now there ought
to be some house cleaning and some real reckoning by
these media work organizations. And I guess point two would
be I would like to see John Fetterman and others
(42:59):
really say something clear and forceful about things, and if
it blows up their own party fine, but that's what's necessary.
So those are my two things that I would like
to see in the aftermath of this, if we're going
to have any kind of healthy response to what's happened
here in the last hours and days.
Speaker 3 (43:15):
To make two comments. Well, actually heard him make one,
so I make another. Heard him yesterday. I believe it
was trying to tell the social Democrat elements of his party,
Democrat socialist elements of his party, that he's been to
communist countries, former communist countries, and it was a very
it was a very good statement. Number two, he was
(43:38):
very strong on the Charlie Kirk assassination. So, but there
aren't very many fetterments, Steve.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
They aren't.
Speaker 3 (43:47):
That's the problem. How many other people are in Congress
who are? I mean, the closest you get to that
is Gavin Newsom, who's just trying to pretend so that
he can actually be a viable candidate in twenty twenty eight.
I wish, I wish I didn't have to be that
cynical about it, but I see absolutely zero other possibilities.
(44:11):
Fetterman's the only guy on the left who cares more
about the truth than he does left wing ideology, and
I mean, if you've seen it, sorry we.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Shouldn't prize don I'm going to give you the last
word here today.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Well, I'd like to see not just Democrats give their
sister soul just speeches which is a reference for the
younger listeners of Bill Clinton attacking black rappers who are
glorifying violence and particularly glorifying killing police officers if I
remember was the actually song in question, and actually support
(44:51):
real policies that I think the condemning this is just
too easy. It's just rhetoric. So what the I think
what Republicans should do in their state houses and in
Congress is put for crime bills that will actually do
something about this kind of political violence and see whether
Democrats will come to their senses and support them. I
(45:12):
think it's what their constituents trapped in these inner cities
really want, and so let's have crime bills that would
I think make it harder for the criminally insane to
get out of mental hospitals. And also, on the other hand,
I think that maybe Republicans should consider making it harder
(45:33):
for the criminally insane to get their hands on guns.
Although I think a lot you know, this is a
hard question for people in the conservative movement about how
far can you go in requiring, you know, some kind
of mental test to have access to firearms. And I think,
as Lucretia says, if there's a link between transgender people
(45:57):
and these kinds of this kind of violence, and it
ought to be investigated and there should be public policies
about that, and that we should stop suppression of speech
where we can openly debate this. I I you know, Steve,
I love you, but I don't think any of this
reforming the media is going to matter. It's going to work.
They're not going to change, you know, they, you know they.
I think the only thing that can work is competitive organizations. Right.
(46:19):
The reason why we even know about the Charlotte incident,
which took place several weeks ago, right, that's incredible things
it deplates in August is because Fox News just started
playing the video from it, but the local media in
Charlotte wasn't really covering the time. So I don't, I don't,
I would say, you know, you know, there's just you're
not going to reform the New York Times from the inside.
(46:41):
You just have to have more competitive organizations. And that's
the great thing about the free speeches a marketplace.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
You're you're probably right, and I'm you know, as old
as I get, I'm still naively optimistic from now and then,
as Lucretia can tell you. Optimistic, that's what you that's
what you call optimistic. And you know, I don't know,
but this is a.
Speaker 3 (47:03):
Good thing, Steve, It's not a bad thing. I feel
a little optimism today.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
I guess he's infernally optimistic.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
Yes, okay, but I do want to I want to
have a tiny moment of a faux shot in freud
about that what you mentioned a moment ago, maybe a
little bit of lightheartedness on this sad day.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
But uh when I don't.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
Know if you're aware, but the Biden administration added to
the application for fire the federal application to get firearms.
They added to the demographic section male, female, and non binary,
which means if if if the Trump administration actually were
to go forward with their plan to call transgender mental illness,
(47:54):
they would.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Already have a database.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
So you know, you have to have a little bit
of a fun with that one, right, Yeah, right, I know.
Speaker 1 (48:02):
Well, all right, listeners, wee we may come back. I mean,
I've got to get back from overseas and trumpic around
on the ice. Uh, but we may come back here
in a few days with a regular episode. We'll just
have to see if we can work on our schedules.
But that's going to be.
Speaker 3 (48:16):
You've got to give John a chance to defend himself against.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Uh, the terf stuff. Yeah, I know it's right on the.
Speaker 3 (48:24):
On the theological political questions too.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
Right, Well, we have a lot of we have a
lot of old business to cover, but the new business
is over over come us today and so that's it
for tonight. So why by guys, see you in a
couple of days.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
Take care of hey, for Charlie's family, by everybody,
Well, it's hard to say. Welcome everybody to what I'm
going to call an emergency podcast, like our friends that
commentary occasionally do, because they're up every day and we're
only up every week. But I'm over here in Iceland.
Lucretia's joining me from Arizona. John is in Washington, d C.
And we're all in a state of shock about the
news that's broken here in the last hour about the
(00:23):
shooting of Charlie Kirk. And it comes hard on this
unbelievable story out of North Carolina here in the last
few days, of a woman Ukrainian refugee asylum seeker being
murdered by someone who'd been arrested fourteen times and not
kept in prison beyond one short sentence for an earlier case.
(00:45):
And there's more to be said about that, but I
don't know. Even before the news about Charlie Kirk today,
I was sensing that we'd reached a turning point, that
the whole the contrast between the lionization of Joe George
Floyd in twenty twenty is over and now the left,
(01:05):
of course and the media, the media coverage of this
North Carolina story is a story in itself but I'm uh,
but now I don't know. We'll just you know, it's
early yet, We're only an hour out of this news.
But so I don't know who wants to start, Lucretia,
do you want to go? I'm sure you have a
lot to say, needless to say, and our listeners will expect.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
For before we do that, Stev, you should say that
this is the three Whiskey, a happy hour podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
It is.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Who was on it?
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Yeah, I have been. I mean, I don't feel like
much mirth at this moment, but I have been drinking
these wonderful Lecelandic drinks at a very fine bar here
on the south coast of Iceland. But okay, anyway, Lucretia
start us out.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I'm going to go backwards even a little bit further
to the situation in Minneapolis that the media ignored once
it was clear that this was a trans person, uh,
to the extent that they talked about it at all.
It was well, we don't have a motive yet, and
you know, so the left created the entire transgender movement
(02:20):
and added to it all of those dangerous drugs and
the and and just feeding into the people people's mental illness.
We talked about that a little bit before, uh, and
anybody who brought up that this was a transgender person
who was responsible for the murder of those children was
roundly criticized. Oh, we can't, we can't. We have to
(02:43):
stand up for our transgender brothers.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
And sisters, however that works.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
And then and then, of course the murder of how
do you say or name do you know? Is it Irena?
Have you heard of?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
I'm not sure Arena is something.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
I want to make sure I say it right, because
ire Zabutska call it. A beautiful little girl and young woman. Sorry,
she just looks so young and innocent, and she was
just gorgeous. And this animal, this subhuman creature, who should
have been in jail, as you pointed out, from fourteen
(03:17):
past violent crime arrests, just for no apparent reason other
than I guess some people are there's some reason to
believe he walked away saying I got that white girl.
I got that white girl. I don't even know if
it's I'm not even calling it a racist incident. It's
just but we can't have honest conversations about that. And
(03:41):
then jump ahead, and I don't want to get ahead
of you on this, Steve, because you said it yourself.
But I was actually on X when I first saw
this happen, and you know, saw the lovely people, lots
of famous people saying pray for Charlie kirk Is again,
absolutely beautiful family, beautiful blonde, gorgeous wife, beautiful kids, two
(04:03):
of them. And then all of a sudden you start
seeing the left again. Oh guess he lost that debate,
And you know, just and Pritzker that there's nothing redeeming
about that man. I will keep my lookism comments to
myself for a moment, because that's you know, the fact
(04:25):
that he's ugly and fat isn't even the least of
his problems. You know, he actually had the temerity to
blame Trump and January sixth for starting a cycle of
violence that we now can't get out of. I'm done
with these people, with these people on the left who
celebrate murder. That particular comment about I guess he lost
a debate had already it had been up for four
(04:48):
minutes at one hundred and twenty thousand likes. You know,
I don't think this is why I tell the guys
in a chat, I don't think we can have a
political community with people like this. I really don't. Evans
NBC blamed Trump. The Matthew Dowd blamed Charlie Kirk himself
(05:11):
for his full speech. And if anything, anybody who's ever
listened to Charlie Kirk knows he doesn't have hateful speech.
I don't know what else to say, Steve. I'll be
quiet now and let you take well.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
You know, normally I don't like to dish on people,
but I saw the Matthew Dowd comment too, and here
I'll just share with listeners that back around maybe twenty ten,
two thousand and nine, remember he was a Bush person
who had helped Bush win the election in two thousand
and two thousand and four, and we were together at
an event in San Antonio, Texas. And I won't go
(05:47):
through the details because they're, you know, boring. Now. I
don't remember clearly except coming away thinking this guy is
a total adult who knows nothing. He is a lightweight.
Why do why did the Bush people go bond to him?
Why do people treat him like you? Anyway, Matthew Dallas
a complete useless I'm gonna sound like you, He's a
completely useless human being. Okay, I should stop there because
(06:10):
normally not my style, except tonight that it is. I've
seen some of those comments too, and I guess a
couple of things occurred to me. One is again and
in the new media age we live in. You know,
it was much taken by Jim Pearson's great book about
the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination. We know that Kennedy,
(06:31):
John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a communist who'd been
to the Soviet Union wanted to go to Cuba. But
what was the media narrative within minutes? It was, Well,
it was the right wing climate of hate in Dallas.
I think you can't get away with that now, right
because I think the media landscape and a social media
(06:52):
landscape is different. You know, again, it's early on to
see how this all plays out, but i'll stop here. John,
You've been patient here. Well, Lucretia and I have been
venting a big way. So, oh, you were supposed to
be on Charlie Kirks Joy.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
I know Charlie. I've known Charlie for a while. And
the crazy thing, the cozy crazy coincidence, I was supposed
to go on Charlie's podcast yesterday afternoon. And the reason
I couldn't is because I was on Fox and Fox
went over long, and because my Fox interview went too long,
they went and had to get a different guest, and
(07:30):
it's a terrible I was actually on Zoom with Charlie
and his producer and I was saying, well, I'll just
come back on in a few days later this week,
and I mean, that's not going to happen. Now. I'd
been on Charlie's podcast several times, but most importantly, and
I think this is maybe what we all having come
(07:50):
with him, is at the Claremont Institute brought me and
him together during the COVID years. He was a Lincoln Fellow,
and he was a Lincoln Fellow in Las Vegas the
one year that we had the Lincoln Fellowship in Las Vegas.
But Charlie, Yeah, Charlie, the only place we could have
(08:12):
a conference, and Charlie, being the upstanding young man he
was even then, I could not tempt him to join
me at the craps table. I remember that distinctly. And
one of the things I do at these Lincoln conferences
is I run a war game where which I had
gone through when I was in the Bush administration, and
(08:34):
I run a war game, and I have each of
the fellows be like the Secretary Defense or the President,
and I can't remember. I think I had Charlie be
the editor in chief of the New York Times, because
I always try to assign them roles opposite to their
true feelings. And he played the He played it with Gusto,
who is my recollection. He really enjoyed playing the part
(08:56):
of editor in chief of the New York Times. I
believe trying to run a story imperiling national security exactly
the last thing he would ever do. But I do remember,
you know, one thing that he was really interested in
then and now was how far could the judiciary go
and trying to undermine a presidency. He was already interested
(09:18):
in that even in twenty twenty one, which of course
is just a few months after January sixth. And then
on his podcast that I've been on a few times
this year, it was a wonderful guy. He was just
a talent, you know, That's one thing I mean the
guy was. He just came away. He was talented. And
so the two thoughts that you both had I had
(09:41):
was one, is this the kind of event which will
indeed change the consciousness of the country in a way.
Maybe my hope would be that it would show everyone
that this political violence has gone too far. Right. This
is you know, it's no I think it is just
again a coincidence, but maybe not that the trial of
(10:03):
the guy who tried to assassinate President Trump started this week.
You know, we're seeing this new level of political violence,
and I don't think we should tolerate it. Maybe if
the Kennedy assassination unleashed things, maybe this kind of assassination
could have the opposite effect. And then the second thing
I bet we're going to find as we found in
(10:26):
the case I think of this Charlotte killer, as we
found in the case of the transgender killer that Lucretia
was talking about. You know, we have to fix our
mental health system. I think one of the things, one
of the great errors of the sixties and seventies was
loosening the mental health system, where we allow people to
wander the streets who are clearly not well. And we're
(10:49):
seeing that this is a large explanation behind the killings.
And I even think this is actually an interesting question
and constitutional law and policy is right. You have a
natural right to your freedom. But I don't think you
have a natural right to your freedom to the point
where it proses a danger to other people. And at
some point, society I think has to be able to,
(11:10):
you know, commit people to mental hospitals involuntarily. And I
bet that's what we're going to find the shooter here
at some point.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
Well, I mean not if you've been arrested fourteen times.
Let's go back by the way that Daniel Penny case
in New York. You know, jd Evance has a great
tweet saying about the North Carolina business that you know,
Daniel Penny tried to prevent something like this and he
was got he faced criminal charges for doing so. Well,
the person who died at the hands of Daniel Penny
(11:38):
in that subway two three four years ago had been
arrested numerous times, just like the person in North Carolina.
And let go. And so there you go. That's one
element of it. The other one is I'm now now
bringing back a moment that I won't say I regret it,
but I'm sorry that I sort of brought up in
(11:59):
this fashion. I was saying back in twenty twenty, twenty
twenty one, when you know, the riots after George Floyd
all the rest of that said, Yeah, this is very bad,
but it's not as bad as the late sixties when
we had waves of bombings and political assassination, and let's
hope we don't have that again. Now we have had
it again, you know, twice against Trump and now Charlie Kirk,
(12:25):
and again I no moment like this. You don't want
to be partisan about it. But what does the media say,
and what does the left say, Well, you know, Trump's
a fascist, it's right wing violence. Well, you know, maybe
you can find some of that, but again we see
that violence is overwhelmingly coming from the left. Will stop,
(12:46):
Will stop for me too.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
I think the only thing I kind of want to
add to you guys have been everything you said. I
agree with. This idea that the left gets its own
truth about these things is really really frustrating. I'm going
to give you one example.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
There's this.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
It on Twitter that's carrying on about she can't even
pretend she lives in Utah, that she'd be so thrilled
to death about him dying because he's such a hateful,
horrible human being that brought us to this ugly place
where we are blah blah blah blah blah. She says,
Charlie Kirk would personally throw you in a concentration camp
for ten dollars. Can you imagine you know him well, John,
(13:30):
or you both know him more than I do.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Let's say that.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Can you imagine anybody less likely to throw you in
a concentration camp than Charlie Kirk Number one? Number two,
There are no freaking concentration camp, you stupid leftists. There
are no concentration camps. Oh my god. And they can
just keep saying these lies and get away with it.
(13:54):
And I just don't know what to do about it
anymore because there's so many stupid college age people out
there believing it and voting for Mindonnie. Sorry, that's how
it ends up.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Well, one thing, I mean this is maybe not entirely tangential,
but two or three days ago the news was out
that Barry Weiss might be taking your role in the
management of CBS News. And I did see a squip
today that I think is true that, in fact, was
it CBS News or maybe it was The New York Times,
(14:27):
I forget which is going to hire as an on
boodsman Ken Weinstein. I don't know if you know Ken John.
I know him a little bit. He was president of
the Hudston A good conservative, maybe maybe more of too
much of a neo con from Lucrease's taste. But the
point is he's anathema to whatever news organization hired him.
I forget if it's The Times for CBS, but doesn't
matter that the same right. And isn't this interesting how
(14:48):
the worm is turning on some of these things?
Speaker 3 (14:51):
But did you see the reaction to Barry Weiss's apossible appointment?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Yes, was the most vile anti Semitic and Zionist. Oh
it was. It was. I mean, it was just nauseating.
Everything about the left today is nauseating to me. They're evil,
and I don't again, I don't know how we can
continue in a political community with people like this.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Well, I mean that wouldn't go any far.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I mean that's I mean, look, there's the problem with
and I'm so happy I'm not on Twitter because you're
going to see the extremes of people. There are extreme
people on the right that we wouldn't want to associate
with either. And what I really want to know is
what are responsible people on the left going to say
and do about this. I mean, yeah, we could quote
all kinds of crazy nut jobs on Twitter who get
(15:40):
on Twitter and get attention because they just specialize in
saying the most extreme things that are going to rile
you up. But I would it was this opportunity for
some moderate Democrats to disavow this kind of talk, to
say that this is a turning point that we have
to figure out a way too in this kind of
political vibe. Of course, when you talk about what people
(16:02):
who are you know, media figures and cable channels and
in newspapers, that's a different matter. If they they too
are joining in in this kind of this kind of rhetoric,
then I agree with Lucretia that these people are.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Well, you know what did printz Kers say. I mean,
I saw some scrip.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I know it's terrible about Charlie Kirk, but it's it's
really because of the rhetoric of Trump and the legitimizing
he gave to the violence of January sixth that caused
this to happen.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Has nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, I mean, well, John, I mean the place where
I don't think this is news to listeners, the place
to see the real crazy is on Blue Sky. And
I'm sure we're going to see lots of our friends
who will mind Blue Sky for the most crazy things
people are saying there. But that raises a larger point
that has to be dealt with. And I've been saying
this for a while too. Why did some many I mean,
(16:55):
I know some smart liberals, you know, both of them
might like to joke, but who left Twitter from Blue
Sky because they were so mad about Twitter being bought
by Musk and opened up to irresponsible people? So they're
all over there on Blue Sky in our own little
you know, very left a self reinforcing bubble. But there's
(17:17):
a larger point there. Liberals are people on the left
are intellectually and politically insecure people. That's why they want
the coziness of the Blue Sky bubble. That's why they
want the coziness of the campus bubble and the media bubble.
They can't stand to be challenged. What did Kirk do?
He would he would go to college campuses and you know,
(17:39):
take all comers and fight with him. And you know, myself,
I didn't always think that that was actually productive, But
the fact is is that it exposed the rot of
our university campuses where oh my god, we can't bear
to hear something that we disagree with. It will upset us,
It ruins our safe space. If good for Charlie for
doing that. I didn't really want to do that. I mean,
(18:00):
you know, I'd rather be in the classroom for sixteen
weeks where you persuade somebody to change their mind patiently, right.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I think that's us what I think what you're seeing
is that the left. There are stream versions of the left,
and then there are more responsible versions of the left.
But I think what this is going to reveal is
what we're seeing in Charlotte and the other cases Lucretia's
talking about, is that the left doesn't know how to
deal with crime because it is a collision with some
of their deeply held diversity beliefs and deeply held Marxist beliefs.
(18:30):
They can't understand that most people in the country want
to have a safe community where these kinds of attacks
on the subway are assassination. This is in Utah. You
have an assassination in Utah Utah Valley College. I know
people who teach there. I mean, there's a you know,
this is a pretty conservative This is also you know,
Salt Lake City, this is oram Utah, I believe, which
(18:51):
is a pretty conservative part of a conservative state. And
right when you see the responses a Democratic mayor to
these kinds of examples of crime where they say, you
can't rest your way out of right crime, Actually I
think you can. New York City, wrong, John.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
You're wrong. You can't arrest your way out of crime
if you just let them go as soon as you've
taken their mugshot and you put them back on the street,
because that's exactly what happened in the uh situation with
a young woman on the train in North Carolina.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, but the boys that they don't really have a
I think crime is the fundamental threat to the basic
right we have you. The basic right is the garmentship
provide security so that you can enjoy your rights. That's
the kind of the initial deal. And if the society
can't provide basic security, and you have and you've broken
(19:51):
the social contract, and you have these blue state mayors,
blue city mayors who don't know what to do about
crime because it conflicts with their view, right, that this
Marxist view that people are not responsible for their actions
and decisions, and if you have criminals, it's because the
capitalist system oppresses and twists people, not because they've decided
(20:11):
to violate fundamental norms of humanity. I think, why crazy
things about it.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
I don't disagree with what you said, but it's too generous, John.
Some of these people absolutely want the chaos and the
lack of safety and the fact that people live in fear,
because that's where their power comes from. And they, of
course don't have to live like that because there are
leads and they're surrounded by either you know, the commandeering
(20:42):
the police department to be their private security, or paying
having taxpayers pay for private security and live in their
fancy gated communities and so on. They they want people
to suffer crime because that makes them fearful, makes it
more and more and more dependent upon the state for
(21:06):
their deliverance. I do think everything you said is true,
by the way, from a philosophical point of view, I do.
But I also think that they've become unlike you. I'm
no longer willing to give even the slightest benefit of
the doubt in any case, you know this woman.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
I don't really think they want to have I don't
think democratic mayors would prefer to have higher crime rates
to cause instability which keeps them in power. I really don't.
I think they would love to have crime rates that
were lower. They just can't agree with policies that are
known to work and have worked for a long time,
because they just believe the sources of crime are from
(21:44):
these vast and personal forces. They would say society's fault
that that killer in Charlotte turned out that way, that
it wasn't his own personal responsibility and choice. I just
think it's such. They just view human nature differently thought
I thought I'd be Lucretia here with the natural rights.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Two three quick points. One is the mayor of Charlotte.
First of all, she said, oh, I want to thank
responsible people for not repeating the video, because of course
it would be problematic for them to see it right.
The second thing she said was, oh, we need more
money for police. Well, what if they'd arrested the guy
twenty times instead of fourteen times, this wouldn't have happened
(22:24):
and let him go each time. There's, you know, a
flight from reality. So John, I would pick up one
thread of what you said. So what do you say
responsible liberals or reasonable liberals. So I mean, who are
we talking about? John Fetterman I could see speaking clearly
about this bill. And I actually I think one thing
(22:45):
to look at. Let's see what happens in the next
forty eight to seventy two hours in New York between
Cuomo and Mandami. Mandami, who was an all defund the
police type person. He's tried to backtrack, but there's stuff
on the record, and you know, Cuomo, I don't like
that guy worth a darn, but he's like his dad,
and he's a shrewd tactical politician. And let's see if
(23:08):
he picks up on this and beats the heck out
of his opponent.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Let me let's right, let's see what Newsom says. Newsom
was on his podcast. That's right, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Yeah, they come out and he came out and was more.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Says another candidate for potential, you know content.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
A statement that it was it was a bad thing.
I would ask you, guys, can you think of a
single political activist on the left that the large bulk
of even the right wing Twitter universe would celebrate if
they were assassinated?
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I mean, seriously, yeah, probably, I mean I mean, look,
you're talking about the right wing fringe, right people, I know, well, but.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
We're not talking I'm sorry, guys, you're wrong. We're not
talking about the left wing fringe anymore. That is the
left wing.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Well, so back up a step here. I mean, I
think there is john something to what Lucretia says that
there are some people out there. I think some in
office who have the old fashioned Leninist view the worse
the better. And so even before this happened here today,
I was reflecting the last few days on the number
(24:28):
of Democratic office holders like Pritzker I think has said this,
and maybe a couple of others who said, oh, all
these moves of Trump to send National Guard into cities
to fight crime and round up illegal immigrants, it's really
just a predicate to canceling the twenty twenty six and
twenty twenty eight elections and staying in office forever, which
(24:49):
is looney tunes. Now, why this is interesting is that
I remember talking to Peter Collier and David Horowitz now
both passed on right, David recently about i We're were
asking once about you know, what, what don't you guys
think of Nixon? In nineteen sixty nine and seventy when
you were on the radical left, they said, oh, we
didn't care about Nixon. We had a lot of this
(25:10):
view that the worse the better, and they said, our
big theme then was Nixon's going to declare martial law
and cancel the nineteen seventy two election. That was a
big theme on the radical fringe of the new Left
in nineteen seventy. Now it is a view of many
mainstream Democrat elected officials. That's my point.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I wish, I wish I didn't think that most psychological
theories are bunk, because I do. But if the left
didn't have projection, they'd have no accusations to make against
the right at all. You know, really, people talking about
(25:51):
we're going to try to affected the twenty twenty six
or twenty twenty eight election. Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Anyway, all right, so a related shoe because we don't.
I mean, there's a lot more news out to come
and more to say next week, especially if they find
the shooter who's apparently at large. I'm amazed at this,
but they.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Brought somebody in and then released him.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah there was a mistakenness. Yeah, yeah, so a related issue.
It may not seem so at first, but maybe it is.
Is the United States military I decided to take out
a Venezuelan drug running boat, and that has got people
at a high dudgeon, no due process, et cetera, et cetera,
(26:35):
and I, you know, I don't know. I was kind
of thrilled at that. I think it's effective. I think
I'm going to leave it to you, John to give
us the legal basis for it. But I think there
has to be some for a variety of reasons. So
so you talk first about that. I'm again the reaction
to the left to that is very revealing in my mind.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yes, I think there's a more straightforward way to explain it,
and then I think a more a difficult way. I
think the more straightforward way is this could tie into
the declaration about under the Alien Enemies Act, which basically
said we're at war with Venezuela. And at the time
(27:17):
that came out, I was like, what is the proof
you know, the government it could be true, but the
government needs to put out more, you know, explain it
to the American people why it thinks that drug cartels
and the Venezuelan government are so intertwined that they essentially
treat that we essentially are treating these drug cartels as
an arm of the Venezuelan government. And if the Venezuelan
(27:40):
government is infiltrating people into the country and deliberately selling
harmful drugs in the country and using violence against the
United States and our communities, then you can make a
plausible case where it's some kind of state of war,
and if we are, then you can use force against
Venezuela because we are at war with Venezuela, even though
(28:03):
we haven't openly declared it. I don't think you need
some kind of congressional declaration of war to recognize there's
a state that I think is the easier thing to do.
I do think that it would be incumbent on the
Trump administration to make the case a little stronger, or
at least to openly declare we are in hostilities with Venezuela.
I think the harder case, which I don't think the
(28:23):
Trump administration is doing, but I think people on the
left think they're doing it, is to say we're just
allowed to kill drug runners. You know that we are
converting drug smuggling and drug distribution from a military matter
into from a criminal justice matter into a military matter,
and so I've been doing a bunch of interviews and
(28:45):
talking to people about it this last two weeks because
that's very similar to what we faced on nine to
eleven when I was at the Justice Department, when we
considered terrorism on September tenth, two thousand and one, to
be a matter of criminal justice, and we sent the
FBI out to chase down the bombers of the USS
coal and we treated the USS coal as a crime scene.
(29:08):
After September eleventh, we considered terrorist groups to be the
kinds of enemies that we could wage war against. And
that was something in the end that all three branches
agreed with the President. Bush decided on the night of
September eleventh, and Congress agreed on September eighteenth when they
passed in AUMF and the Supreme Court eventually decided a
year later in a case called Handy, that we were
(29:30):
at war.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
Didn't we recently declare certain drug cartels to be terrorist organizations,
which them would open them up to this similar treatment. Yes,
that's something.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
So I think this is the thing that the Trump
administration should do more clearly, is that what they're saying,
what they have said is that these drug cartels are
really part of Venezuelan government. One of the three drug
cartels they designated, they say is run by the president
of Venezuela. It's called the Cartel of the Suns. And
that's just one of the three that were designated. So
(30:03):
that to me is essentially saying, you know, we are
at war with Venezuela. You could make this other claim,
but I don't think they're doing it yet, But you
could make this other claim that drug cartels are as
big a threat as terrorist groups, and they are the
thing about drug cartels, and again, this is something that
has to be made out by the government. They're probably
(30:23):
going to have to do it in court sooner or later,
is that drug cartels are no longer interested in just crime.
They're really interested in affecting our policies or attacking us
because of our foreign policies, or they threaten the national security.
But I don't think the arguments you hear some people
on the left making accusing Conservatives of making hold water.
(30:46):
They're basically saying, oh, the Trump administration is just saying
anything that hurts the country enables us to declare state
of war. I don't think that could be right, because
there's I mean, you could say any kind of crime,
or any level of crime, if you aggregate it throughout
the country, probably causes more harm to our country than
most wars ever have in our history. You can say
(31:07):
all the fundamental deaths in a given year, you know,
are more than the casualties that we suffered in World
War two or Vietnam and Korea, or so you could
make those kind of claims. So I think what you
also need in addition to the harm of crime is
you need some kind of organization that's attacking us for
political reasons. So like, I don't think we could declare
war on the mafia. The mafia doesn't care what our
(31:29):
foreign policy is. They just want to make money. In fact,
the mafia probably likes it the richer and more powerful
we are because they can make more money. And I
think that's a difference between that and say Venezuela that's
using drug cartels to try to harm us as part
of a campaign against the United States.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Yeah, I don't like your mafia analogy very well, because
they're all fear in this country and they're making the
money to keep it here. These other countries. Are they
want to make money, Yes, they're taking money out of
the country, but they're doing active harm to our citizens.
And I think it's actually a pretty easy case to say,
wait a minute, how many Americans are dying now from
ventanyl and other drugs being imported in the country and
(32:09):
governments are supporting this and we're done with that? And
I don't know, I rather liked it. I was kind
of thrilled. My guess is that the venezueland drug boats
and other countries are going to drop to a trickle now.
And Okay, what else is on our list here that's
related to the c and Lucretia's view about this.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Yeah, okay, I agree with both of you. I have
I am to understand from talking to someone who has
real personal knowledge of this, that fentanyl is getting harder
and harder to buy on the street. And if nothing else,
that's a wonderful thing, because there was a time when
(32:50):
you could get a hit of fentanyl, which of course
you know it could kill you quite easily, for five
bucks on the street. And it's it's been pro based
out of the market for most drug users. They're using
other drugs. But that's I mean kudos to Trump for
taking that seriously and caring about it. I remember one
(33:12):
of my favorite memes was during COVID was that our
government was more successful at keeping you from getting ivermectin
than they were and shutting down fentanyl. It was never
the lack of ability there was. It was never something
that the government couldn't do. They just had no will
(33:34):
to do so. And so I'm all in favor of
it won't matter one of the things. There was an
article yesterday. Gosh, I wish I could remember who wrote it.
Somebody good wrote it, and it was basically that it
doesn't matter what the issue is. It doesn't matter how
great the outcome of a policy is, whatever it might be.
(33:54):
If if it can be used against Trump, the left
will do so. They're Trump arrangement syndrome so bad. And
you know, I know that's trite, but it really is true.
The mayor of Washington, d C. Did come back and
and and give Trump credit for, you know, for cleaning
(34:14):
up Washington, d C. So I do think that, you know,
she's an exception to that thing. I said to you, John,
the only thing I don't want to beat the Venezuelan thing.
I'm all in favor of it. That seems to me
a much more worthy activity for our military than nation
building in Iraq or Afghanistan. But we'll leave that one
(34:37):
for another Neo Kan time.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
I do want to.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Mention it's almost it seems almost kind of sacrilegious to celebrate,
but I do think Trump got some victories this week
from the courts. Not huge victories, but victories nonetheless. And
maybe John you want to talk about those, because you're
our resident expert. And how far you think, say, the
(35:03):
Humphreys executors is close to being overturned.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
I mean I kind of consider it overturned already, but yes,
you've seen. I mean, how could it not be more
overturned than on the exact facts of Humphrey's executor itself.
So the latest Supreme Court intervention was basically firing someone
on the FTC, which was the agency that Humphrey's executor upheld.
(35:30):
The Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts issued and lifted an
order that allowed an FTC commissioner to go back to
work even though she'd been fired by President Trump. I
don't see any more clear signal that Humphrey's executor is
toast the interesting thing is whether this is going to
(35:53):
apply to the Federal Reserve. And if that's the battleground,
then Trump is already won because that basically means every
other agency is now really under the control of the president,
as I think the Constitution requires. So Trump is really
I mean, this is something I mean, I think most
conservatives could not understand what Humphrey's executor meant. It makes
(36:15):
no sense when you read it, but it does restore,
I think, the Constitution to this sort of spartan three
branch framework that the founders created. And I you know,
but it's interesting that battlefront heredy has moved to the
independence of the Central Bank, where just yesterday President Trump
lost a case in Washington, d C. Saying that he
(36:38):
can't fire this member of the Federal Reserve Board, the
Lisa Cook, who has been apparently not telling the truth
and her mortgage statements and again, as we discussed it before,
apparently not reporting adequately what income she's making from rental
properties to the irs. So I think this is greally,
but in general, I think you're should that make victories
(37:02):
for a Trump court.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
Before you make a point, because I can tell you
have an important point to make. By the look on
your face. I just have a quick question for John.
Did you find the court and I'm going to forget
the name of the case. Of course, my brain's a
little fried right now that where they made a distinction
between the Federal Reserve as a quasi independent agency. You
know what I think about that from my snarky comments
(37:24):
about it last time.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Just the summer, Yeah, just the summer Willcox, of course
the cases will Cox, right.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
But do you think that the doctrine of executive of
Article two? Executive power shall be invested in the president?
Do you think that there is actually a principled reason
to carve out the FED from the rest of what
(37:50):
you made a pretty good argument for. It looks like
the court's absolutely heading in that direction to say no.
If it's a if a person is exercising executive power,
the person can fire them. Why would the FED be said.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
I don't yeah, I don't see why the Fed gets
an exception from the Constitution. I mean, everyone I think
agrees in our policy would be great if politicians didn't
set the interest rates. And there's interesting work that's been
done the shows, even with these alleged protections for the
central banks, independence. Presidents like Lyndon Johnson have harangued central bank.
(38:25):
FED governors or Richard Nixon have successfully exerted political pressure
on them anyway to lower interest rates with an upcoming election.
But I don't. So here's the best argument on the
other side is this, They would say the Fed actually
does two things. It regulates the banking, which is executing
the law, so they would say, got to get rid
(38:47):
of that. And then the other thing it does is
that it's kind of like the lender of last resort
and it engages in these what they call open market operations,
which sets interest rates by a short term interest rates
by buying and selling treasury bills on the open markets.
So the interesting thing is whether gold on what is lucretia?
(39:13):
Oh so.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Suspect. But yeah, let's wait.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
We get rule and two hours how much seventy two.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Thirty two hours, eight hour? Anyway, john finish your.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Point just to go back to this. So some people say,
I don't find this persuasive at all. But some people
say that part of what the Federal Reserve does could
really be spun off into a private corporation, And yeah,
I don't. And it's like the first bank of the
United States was something like that. The First Bank of
the United States was really much more like a It
(39:50):
was like a publicly chartered company. It had shareholders, most
of the stock was held by private investors, and it
really was more like just like a a bank. And
the Federal Reserve operations, I don't think that's true because
I think if the Federal Reserve is out there trying
to change interest rates by buying and selling the property
of the United States government, I think that's executing federal
(40:13):
law too. So this is just one where people there
are some conservatives that who are trying to save the
independence of the Central Bank from the logic of three
distinct branches and the one that executes federal law has
to be the executive branch, and it has to be
under the president's control.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, I mean, I hope that's where it falls out.
I mean, so look, I go two directions on this,
just briefly on the economics. One is, in the Panic
of nineteen oh seven, JP Morgan got together a few
of his friends and fixed it out of their own pockets.
Really are the resources of their bank. You can't do
that now. We can't do that now because the debt
(40:49):
of the country has grown too big, which ironically might
be an argument against the Federal Reserve. Could we have
behaved this irresponsibly without the Federal Reserve having these extraordinary powers?
I don't know. Again, in nineteen oh seven, I think
it's true that John D. Rockefeller could have written a
personal check to eliminate the debt of the United States.
(41:11):
Now Elon Musk times one hundred cannot do that today. Okay,
leave that another side with some economists. Two quick points
and then let's get out on this special episode. One
is I got to thinking here again in the last
few days before today, that the left is saying, gosh,
the Supreme Court is backing up Trump or other people
(41:32):
saying gosh, we're sending a lot of questions to Supreme Court.
What's going on here? And I thought, well, that's what
Roosevelt did in the nineteen thirties, right, They overworked the
court because Roosevelt was trying to push the envelope and
change things, and now Trump is trying to change it back.
And that's point number two. Just for fun, I did
see a great meme and it was the formal portrait
(41:53):
of Justice Clarence Thomas and it was labeled Humphrey's Executor
Oil on Canvas. I thought was fun, But that's all
the merth I'm going to have here. Let's get out
today instead of doing our usual format with Babylon b's
and an AI thing, Let's try and answer this question,
and I'll go first. The question is something like, what
(42:16):
are two or three things you'd order, maybe just one
thing you would like to see or think we ought
to see as a reasonable and sober reaction to what
has happened here lately. My first one would be, or
my only one, it would be if the New York
Times under major media to drop saying the story here
is Republicans pounds. That's been the media reaction to the
(42:38):
North Carolina story. And maybe, you know, the New York
Times for a while said, you know, gosh, maybe we
should include some Trump voices on our pages. And they
didn't really do that much, but maybe now there ought
to be some house cleaning and some real reckoning by
these media work organizations. And I guess point two would
be I would like to see John Fetterman and others
(42:59):
really say something clear and forceful about things, and if
it blows up their own party fine, but that's what's necessary.
So those are my two things that I would like
to see in the aftermath of this, if we're going
to have any kind of healthy response to what's happened
here in the last hours and days.
Speaker 3 (43:15):
To make two comments. Well, actually heard him make one,
so I make another. Heard him yesterday. I believe it
was trying to tell the social Democrat elements of his party,
Democrat socialist elements of his party, that he's been to
communist countries, former communist countries, and it was a very
it was a very good statement. Number two, he was
(43:38):
very strong on the Charlie Kirk assassination. So, but there
aren't very many fetterments, Steve.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
They aren't.
Speaker 3 (43:47):
That's the problem. How many other people are in Congress
who are? I mean, the closest you get to that
is Gavin Newsom, who's just trying to pretend so that
he can actually be a viable candidate in twenty twenty eight.
I wish, I wish I didn't have to be that
cynical about it, but I see absolutely zero other possibilities.
(44:11):
Fetterman's the only guy on the left who cares more
about the truth than he does left wing ideology, and
I mean, if you've seen it, sorry we.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Shouldn't prize don I'm going to give you the last
word here today.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Well, I'd like to see not just Democrats give their
sister soul just speeches which is a reference for the
younger listeners of Bill Clinton attacking black rappers who are
glorifying violence and particularly glorifying killing police officers if I
remember was the actually song in question, and actually support
(44:51):
real policies that I think the condemning this is just
too easy. It's just rhetoric. So what the I think
what Republicans should do in their state houses and in
Congress is put for crime bills that will actually do
something about this kind of political violence and see whether
Democrats will come to their senses and support them. I
(45:12):
think it's what their constituents trapped in these inner cities
really want, and so let's have crime bills that would
I think make it harder for the criminally insane to
get out of mental hospitals. And also, on the other hand,
I think that maybe Republicans should consider making it harder
(45:33):
for the criminally insane to get their hands on guns.
Although I think a lot you know, this is a
hard question for people in the conservative movement about how
far can you go in requiring, you know, some kind
of mental test to have access to firearms. And I think,
as Lucretia says, if there's a link between transgender people
(45:57):
and these kinds of this kind of violence, and it
ought to be investigated and there should be public policies
about that, and that we should stop suppression of speech
where we can openly debate this. I I you know, Steve,
I love you, but I don't think any of this
reforming the media is going to matter. It's going to work.
They're not going to change, you know, they, you know they.
I think the only thing that can work is competitive organizations. Right.
(46:19):
The reason why we even know about the Charlotte incident,
which took place several weeks ago, right, that's incredible things
it deplates in August is because Fox News just started
playing the video from it, but the local media in
Charlotte wasn't really covering the time. So I don't, I don't,
I would say, you know, you know, there's just you're
not going to reform the New York Times from the inside.
(46:41):
You just have to have more competitive organizations. And that's
the great thing about the free speeches a marketplace.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
You're you're probably right, and I'm you know, as old
as I get, I'm still naively optimistic from now and then,
as Lucretia can tell you. Optimistic, that's what you that's
what you call optimistic. And you know, I don't know,
but this is a.
Speaker 3 (47:03):
Good thing, Steve, It's not a bad thing. I feel
a little optimism today.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
I guess he's infernally optimistic.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
Yes, okay, but I do want to I want to
have a tiny moment of a faux shot in freud
about that what you mentioned a moment ago, maybe a
little bit of lightheartedness on this sad day.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
But uh when I don't.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
Know if you're aware, but the Biden administration added to
the application for fire the federal application to get firearms.
They added to the demographic section male, female, and non binary,
which means if if if the Trump administration actually were
to go forward with their plan to call transgender mental illness,
(47:54):
they would.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Already have a database.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
So you know, you have to have a little bit
of a fun with that one, right, Yeah, right, I know.
Speaker 1 (48:02):
Well, all right, listeners, wee we may come back. I mean,
I've got to get back from overseas and trumpic around
on the ice. Uh, but we may come back here
in a few days with a regular episode. We'll just
have to see if we can work on our schedules.
But that's going to be.
Speaker 3 (48:16):
You've got to give John a chance to defend himself against.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Uh, the terf stuff. Yeah, I know it's right on the.
Speaker 3 (48:24):
On the theological political questions too.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
Right, Well, we have a lot of we have a
lot of old business to cover, but the new business
is over over come us today and so that's it
for tonight. So why by guys, see you in a
couple of days.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
Take care of hey, for Charlie's family, by everybody,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.